Is the rise of ‘English nationalism’ in part down to the Scottish independence demands of the SNP? (Quora)

Any state larger than a few square miles is likely to have richer areas and poorer areas. In a single economy using a single currency, this will necessitate fiscal transfers from richer to poorer so as to mitigate the inevitable tendency to higher unemployment in, and internal migration away from, the latter. As long as a single community spirit pervades the state, the richer areas will accept the need for this and it will appear so normal as to be unworthy of notice.

The reluctance of Germany to make such transfers to Greece exemplifies how far the EU has still to travel to become a unified polity. The willingness of richer US states to see federal redistribution to poorer ones is something of a bellwether for community spirit in the US.

The rich south of England has long been accustomed to make such transfers to all the relatively poorer areas of the UK, including Scotland. Very briefly, during the North Sea oil boom of the 1980s, this flow reversed.

A feature of this brief period was the rise of a sense of grievance among a minority of Scots that ‘their’ windfall was being squandered. This sentiment was a major contributor to the rise of Scottish nationalism, which came to see the relationship with England as an oppressive one.

A more accurate interpretation of history would probably have been that the rich of the UK have a history of exploiting the poor of the UK (including both English and Scottish poor) until relatively recent times.

The politicisation of this sense of grievance included the invention of the concept of ‘Westminster’ which has, in current mythology, become a foreign occupying force instead of the legitimate government of the whole of the UK.

The UK has, after all, had a disproportionate tendency to appoint Scots to the highest offices in the land, which makes it difficult to complain about ‘English’ exploitation of Scotland. Given the relative populations of England and Scotland, it is inevitable that total English representation in parliament will be larger, but it was always possible for Scots to obtain English seats in parliament because Scots historically tended to be more politically active and the English didn’t mind voting for them.

Unfortunately, the complaints, which culminated in the referendum of 2014, attracted attention to the financial flows from England to Scotland under the Barnett Formula. Prior to this, I suspect few had actually heard of this arcane feature of our system. Now, nobody likes to see something that can be interpreted as their generosity (even if they had no choice) flung back in their face, and it generates resentment against the complainant. Hence, to a small extent, the SNP has provoked an anti-Scottish feeling in England.

However, I agree with those suggesting that a far larger influence on English nationalism has been the denigration of patriotism by modern political correctness. There is, in working class communities (and I come from one myself) a not unreasonable pride in one’s country and a determination to defend its interests against assaults from whomsoever, internally or externally. This was hailed by Gilbert and Sullivan in the song ‘He is an Englishman’, by Flanders and Swan in ‘The English are Best’, and today the English working class cares nothing for skin colour or religion but cares a whole lot about whether a person is loyal to his country. Someone who isn’t loyal is contemptible.

It seems to me that much so-called English nationalism is no more nor less than patriotism. In some ‘progressive’ circles patriotism is very unfashionable.

But I’ll be obliged if you don’t run down my country in my hearing, and I suspect a lot of the folk whence I came feel the same.

We Are The People

Anthropologically speaking, it is not at all uncommon for a primitive tribe to call itself 'The People' or sometimes 'The Human Beings'.

By definition in a tribal society, everyone who is not of 'The People' is an enemy. The tribal leaders are able to achieve a high degree of loyalty from their members, on the one hand by claiming that they know from their experience and wisdom what is best for 'The People' and on the other by maintaining an implied threat to exile any dissident, cutting them off from 'The People' and sending them out into an alien and hostile world.

Important problems present themselves for tribal leaders as members grow more sophisticated and begin to interact more with other tribes, for example by trading with them rather than just fighting them in the traditional way.

First, alternative sources of authority and alternative truths will be presented to members of the tribe. It will become obvious that other tribes have contrived to prosper without necessarily following the methods prescribed by the leaders of 'The People'.

Secondly, the tribal territory may become less precisely defined.

In the early tribal period of course nomadism precluded any notion of owning land. Once the tribe settled down to a more sedentary agricultural existence it was necessary to introduce at least a communal land-ownership concept in order that those who worked to grow food should also be able to enjoy eating it.

However once tribes begin to mingle then there arises the problem of whether anyone who lives within the territory of 'The People' should be regarded as a member of 'The People' or not.

Perhaps however of greater concern is the members of 'The People' who gradually lose their subservience to their traditional leaders and begin to suspect that peaceful mingling with other tribes is potentially better than enmity.

At this point, in order to defend their power, the tribal leaders will usually try and start a war.

Sadly it seems the SNP administration have declared war on a very large segment of the population of Scotland, probably still the majority. Whatever the outcome, it will not be good.